Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915

Browse

Filters

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Williams MSubject: search.filters.subject.Psychometrics

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Levels of measurement and statistical analyses
    (24/05/2021) Williams M
    Most researchers and students in psychology learn of S. S. Stevens’ scales or “levels” of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio), and of his rules setting out which statistical analyses are admissible with each measurement level. Many are nevertheless left confused about the basis of these rules, and whether they should be rigidly followed. In this article, I attempt to provide an accessible explanation of the measurement-theoretic concerns that led Stevens to argue that certain types of analyses are inappropriate with data of particular levels of measurement. I explain how these measurement-theoretic concerns are distinct from the statistical assumptions underlying data analyses, which rarely include assumptions about levels of measurement. The level of measurement of observations can nevertheless have important implications for statistical assumptions. I conclude that researchers may find it more useful to critically investigate the plausibility of the statistical assumptions underlying analyses than to limit themselves to the set of analyses that Stevens believed to be admissible with data of a given level of measurement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Validating the workplace dignity scale
    (University of California Press for the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS), 20/07/2020) Scott-Campbell C; Williams M
    Workplace Dignity has long been the subject of scholarly enquiry, although until recently the body of research has been dominated by ethnographic work. Recently, Thomas and Lucas (2019) developed the first quantitative, direct measure of perceptions of workplace dignity: the Workplace Dignity Scale (WDS). Given the importance of understanding dignity in the workplace, this study sought to replicate the initial scale validation study conducted by Thomas and Lucas, so as to further test the validity of the WDS and the reliability of the scores it produces. Moreover, the current study contributes to the ongoing methodological reform of psychology towards a transparent and rigorous science by preregistering the method and analysis script prior to collecting data. A large sample of workers (N = 812) from the United States were recruited through Prolific Academic and completed an online questionnaire that included the WDS, as well as theoretically related scales (e.g., workplace incivility). Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the model specified by Thomas and Lucas had reasonable global fit, although it did not meet all of our criteria for good fit, and estimates of reliability (ωt) indicated that responses to items making up the two subscales of the WDS, Dignity and Indignity, had high internal consistency. Nomological analyses revealed that the Dignity subscale of the WDS was significantly correlated in the expected directions with theoretically related variables. Furthermore, the Dignity and Indignity factors of the WDS were found to highly correlate with one another, and an exploratory analysis suggested that the Indignity factor might be a methodological artefact, posing questions as to whether the two factors are qualitatively different phenomena as was argued by Thomas and Lucas. It is concluded that the WDS is a promising tool for measuring workplace dignity although refinement of the proposed measurement model may be necessary.